Conspicuously absent from your post, Mr. Cardenas, are any actual acts of international terrorism from the last two decades that Cuba is alleged to have supported.

You embarass yourself by including alleged espionage in you list. Espionage is not, by itself, terrorism, for which the US can be thankful.

You find it ironic that some support nornalization of relations with Cuba, even as thousands risk their lives for freedom elsewhere. I find it ironic that you can make that argument without, evidently, noticing that the US has normalized relations with virtually all the countries involved.

Thank you to the author for demonstrating Governor Richardson's point so clearly! The fact is, the author himself tells us why Cuba SHOULD be taken off the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. He correctly cannot give one example of Cuba sponsoring terrorism in the past 3 decades. According to the protocol of the list, to be taken off, a country need only to refrain from terrorism sponsorship for 6 months. The most recent State Sponsor of Terrorism Country Report (SSTR) of 299 pages, dedicates only 8 sentences to Cuba.

The fact that Cuba harbors US fugitives from justice is put forth as the "justification" for leaving Cuba on the list in the SSTR, so it is understandable that the author would likewise confuse those wanted for criminal acts with those wanted for terrorist acts (such as Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosh, the very first airline terrorists currently being harbored by the United States.) If harboring fugitives from justice actually fit the criteria for State Sponsor of Terrorism, as defined by the SSTR itself, (which it is not) then we would be quick to put Mexico on the list because due to its aversion to extraditing those facing the death penalty, it has harbored hundreds of the worst US criminal fugitives for many years. And let's also remember that all fugitives arriving in Cuba in recent decades HAVE been returned to the US.

I suggest the author READ the SSTR and then objectively assess Cuba's current behavior with regard to the criteria and then for good measure… compare that to the behavior of all the REAL state sponsors of terrorism that are not on the list or have been taken off recently like North Korea!

For any honest man, it is impossible to not arrive at the same conclusion as Governor Richardson. And for any true American patriot, it is intolerable that the scourge of terrorism be used for petty political purposes by a hand-full of elitist politicians and immigrants.

The intensity and exaggeration of Mr. Cardenas effort to justify Cuba's inclusion in the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism reflects its central role in the tottering edifice of exile politics.

The list itself is already discredited as removal has become a political token for other issues, first to reward North Korea for its steps toward denuclearization and soon to thank Sudan for following through with the referendum to divide the country.

Removing Cuba from the list is both objectively merited, but also can serve as an appropriate US response to the release of the Black Spring prisoners and of Alan Gross if he confesses or is convicted.

On a practical level removal will allow Florida state universities to undertake normal academic programs with Cuba and Cuba will regain its sovereign immunity in US courts, essential for telecommunications agreements. Notably the abortive effort by Senators Menendez and Rubio to block President Obama's opening of more airports to air traffic with Cuba was tied to the thin reed of Cuba's listing.

The Center for International Policy held a conference last year that explored the topic in detail as reported here http://ciponline.org/cuba/Terr%20Followup.pdf

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development

It is interesting that Mr. Cardenas begins his article with a subtle and disrespectful attack on the credibility of Governor Richardson. Far from being a “self-styled” diplomatic troubleshooter, the historical record of Governor Richardson’s public and diplomatic service (Congressman, Energy Secretary, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) makes him a diplomatic troubleshooter in fact and deed and credible in his recommendations. This is part of the tactics of the pro-embargo intransigence that exists. First discredit the messenger, then the message.

The political agenda of the pro-embargo lobby is to make sure that Cuba stays on the Terror List and Mr. Cardenas article here is consistent with that end. It is a clearly stated goal on one of their websites! Why? For as long as Cuba is on the Terror List, another law, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act applies depriving nations on that list sovereign immunity in our courts. This spawned the Cuba litigation cottage industry in South Florida where private plaintiffs sue Cuba and obtain multi-million default judgments which those parties seek to collect on any Cuban assets in the U.S. This is part reason why it costs so much to make long distance calls to Cuba averaging around $1.00 per minute and are routed through third countries. It is also why President Obama’s telecom initiatives for Cuba have not yielded any positive results. Yet those with families and friends on the island pay this price.

Mr. Cardenas uses historical data to make his case. Very old historical data. Logically and rationally, the Terror List is supposed to accurately reflect whether a nation on that list ultimately poses a threat to Americans’ safety and interests by virtue of that nation’s current activities. It is supposed to be current so it means something today. Despite the reprehensive political system and repression that exists there, Cuba does not export terror now. Americans who visit there are generally safe and free from kidnapping, murder, or attacks on their persons that frequently occur now in Mexico and the Middle East. If Cuba does deserve the designation, then make the case in public now based upon current factual and verifiable information. Present the evidence and let us hold every other nation in the world to the same standard. If we do that the list will include many more nations. Embargo and block travel to those countries too.

The tyranny Mr. Cardenas refers and we also object to can only be removed by the Cuban people who live on the island, not the U.S government or even the Cuban American community here. And we cannot object to such tyranny in one place in the world and yet tolerate it in so many other places. The nations of the world laugh at our hypocrisy. We are deluded believing it does not go unnoticed. It is our responsibility to empower democracy and freedom by example and by influence. That does not happen with an embargo, travel restrictions, or the misguided political application of the terror list designation.

We must thank commentor FORAFREECUBA for demonstrating the opposite of his rhetoric and stressing the point of those who insist that our country's foreign policy be sound in judgement and consistent in application.

Yes, in complete agreement with what I stated earlier, the SSTR does say the following about taking a country off the list...

"The second option is for the President to submit a report to Congress, at least 45 days before the proposed recision will take effect, justifying the recision and certifying that 1) the government concerned has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six-month period; and 2) the government has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the
future."

By any sincere assessment, Cuba clearly DOES qualify for removal.

Hypocrisy is the feigning to believe what one does not. There is no serious foreign policy or terrorism expert in or out of the U.S. Government today who truly believes that the Cuban Government is in any way, shape, or form a sponsor of terrorism. José R. Cárdenas's article is fundamentally dishonest and misleading, relying upon little more than Cuba's support for revolutionary movements mostly when it had the resources to do so several decades ago. Many of the revolutionary struggles that Cuba supported in fact led to the end of repressive regimes. The fact that in several of those cases the U.S. supported the repressive regimes that revolutionary movements sought to topple obviously in no way leads to the conclusion that Cuba is a sponsor of terrorism. Cuba has consistently denounced the use of terrorism to achieve political or social change, and has signed all twelve United Nations anti-terrorist resolutions.

At bottom, keeping Cuba on the annual list of State Sponsors of Terrorism discredits and undermines the seriousness of the list, muddies the distinction between support for legitimate revolutionary movements and terrorist organizations, and prevents a range of steps that should be taken to increase the dialogue between the Governments and people of the United States and Cuba.

The Cold War foreign policy justifications for placing Cuba on the list of sponsors of terrorism in 1982 dissipated many years ago. Only political dinosaurs and those who seek to totally isolate and punish Cuba and its people continue to support the inclusion of Cuba on the terrorism list. A forward-looking foreign policy that promoted democratic reforms in Cuba and addressed the legitimate concerns of the Cuban people would end Cuba's absurd inclusion on the terrorism list, end the punitive economic embargo of Cuba, allow people living in the U.S. to freely travel to Cuba, and establish a framework for the exchange of prisoners that Cuba or the U.S. deem to be political prisoners.

The future of Cuba will be determined by the Cuban people. But the steps outlined above would have the support of the vast majority of the Cuban people and are the only rational and humane steps the U.S. can take to have any positive influence on events in Cuba going forward.

This Cárdenas person, is he the former Foreign Minister of Vincente Fox of Mexico? Isn't it true that he got fired from the Vicente Fox cabinet before Fox's term ended? Don't people say that that happened because Cardenás adulated the U.S. way too much and got way too little in return? Isn't it also true that, in spite of being from the same party as Vicente Fox, Mexico's current Minister, Felipe Calderón, undid certain foreign policy decisions of the Fox administration, including the Cárdenas initiative to cut Mexico's ties with Cuba?

Cárdenas has long lost his position at PAN, but he doesn't seem to have shed some old habits. The main theme of Cárdenas' demonization of Cuba is that she is the only unarguably undemocratic country in the Americas. The promotion of democracy and human rights were in fact a main motif of his actions as Mexico's Foreign Minister. Or so it seems. Fox's Mexico was the only Latin American country not to have condemned the 2002 military coup in Venezuela. The only one. Even some other conservative governments in Latin America - for instance, that of Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil - made their opposition to the coup public before Chávez was reinstated by public revolt. Just like the country Cárdenas doesn't cease to flatter, he uses the human rights chatter to conceal a certain, not very humane, agenda. Fortunately, in his current position Cárdenas is no more harmful than a WSJ opinion section's collumnist.